Dithering on public borrowing

In a new column for National Journal I ask what needs to happen before this problem is taken seriously.

The public debt stands at nearly $8 trillion and within 10 years,
according to Congressional Budget Office projections, it will be more
than $14 trillion. Getting to that second figure in one piece depends
on two things. Some optimistic economic assumptions need to hold, and
investors need to be willing to lend the government another $6
trillion. Taking either of these things for granted would be foolish.

Almost everybody in Washington agrees that the fiscal outlook is
scary. Almost everybody says that something must be done. But the
options for confronting the problem come down to spending cuts or tax
increases, and as soon as you mention either, an embarrassed silence
descends.

The politicians are not as worried as they say they are. And the
same is true of the public. If you believe the polls, voters are more
anxious about public borrowing than their politicians are -- but not so
worried as to welcome a rise in taxes (their own taxes, I mean) or cuts
in Social Security or Medicare. They may be nervous about policies that
would add to the fiscal problem -- hence their hesitation over health
care reform -- but meaningful subtractions from the problem are a
different matter.

Can anything be done? We have been here before. Washington has a
time-honored procedure for such cases. Rather than thinking about
entitlement reform or tax reform, it thinks about process reform.

And I go on to argue that process reform--despite the risk that it will degenerate into mere displacement activity--is not to be despised. In the past it has been a qualified success. Better that than having to deal with an otherwise unavoidable train wreck. You can read the whole column here.